SCC More Trustworthy than Parliament

“Most Canadians trust judges more than MPs, and would support an elected judiciary, a Globe/CTV poll finds.” – The Globe & Mail, Apr. 9/07

Does anybody notice the conflict? Does anybody care to wonder whether the pollsters realized the inconsistency?

Twain wrote that there are three kinds of lies: “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.

He left out one he would have added, were he alive today: the assertion that we should assume that major Canadian newspapers are generally capable of seeing when one plus one one doesn’t equal three; or, even when they see it, would be prepared to admit it if admitting it would contradict some point they’re trying to make.

“Canadians consider the Supreme Court of Canada to be considerably more trustworthy than Parliament, according to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll.” The Globe & Mail, Apr. 9/07

Nonetheless,

“A strong majority of Canadians supports the idea of elected judges, according to a Globe and Mail/CTV poll.” The figure is 63% according to the poll. The Globe & Mail, Apr. 9/07

Twain also described the members of United States Congress as America’s only native criminal class. Should we assume that those Canadians who were polled have a similarly cynical view of Parliamentarians, and that this very likely is their apparent reason for responding that the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) is more trustworthy? Were I a member of the SCC (not a likely event in any foreseeable future) I’d wonder at what that means about the SCC.

Twain also described the members of United States Congress as America’s only native criminal class. Should we assume that those Canadians who were polled did not have a similarly cynical view of Parliamentarians, and that this very likely is their apparent reason for responding that the SCC is more trustworthy? Were I a member of the Supreme Court of Canada (not a likely event in any foreseeable future) I’d wonder.

How many Canadians realize that lawyers don’t want an impartial jury unless there’s no chance of getting one that’s partial towards their client? That’s because the job of lawyers is to win the case for the client (unless, of course, the lawyer happens to be a Crown prosecutor, who is in theory supposed to be indifferent to winning or losing and only concerned with doing justice).

If it’s accurate that so many Canadians want to elect their judges, then it’s for the same reason. These Canadians don’t want impartial judges unless there’s no chance of getting one that’s partial to their view.

Substitute “biased towards the position the voter thinks is the fundamental, incontrovertible, once-and-forever truth” for partial, and you’ll get the drift.

That drift? It’s towards the tyranny of the majority. In literature, it’s sometimes known as Humpty Dumpty’s response to Alice, which, paraphrasing ever so slightly: the question is “who is to be the master; that’s all”. For Humpty Dumpty and the law see, the ComparativeLawBlog.